Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: j g cordes who wrote (7707)	10/4/1998 2:00:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 13994

>>First of all, the US system of justice is being used by BOTH sides for political power and influence. Its naive to think otherwise when its so obvious. I never said that the Republicans weren't using the system of justice, that's absurd. But it's really naive to think that Clinton has not engaged in a protracted assault on the system of justice and on the man who is legally entrusted with representing the US in these investigations, Judge Starr. Never before has an Administration run a public defamation campaign against a prosecutor and potential witnesses. Eight months of serial lying by the President and allowing his aides to knowingly or unknowingly go forward with the same lies, the bogus claims of newly minted privileges, the witness tampering and an unbroken string of defeats in the Federal Courts have massed to unambiguously show that Clinton has neither the law or the facts on his side. Clinton is now left with basically the OJ defense, a call to the rabble and jury nullification. >>In a very real sense, that was one of the intentions of the founding fathers... to allow and promote a continuing argument and struggle to determine what justice should be over time (because justice is not and never will be a fixed and absolute set of conditions). At the same time continuing power of final interpretation through argument and vote is given to the judicial branch. Not really. If you had any legal training or knowledge of history you would know that the Constitution and FF never said anything about judicial review of Congressional acts, even on Constitutional grounds. That was later established in Marbury. Even so, the judicial branch is not ever the "final" word, Congress's is - Congress always has the power to reverse SC interpretations of law through legislation or even of the Constitution itself through the amendment process. In fact, the Constitution says that acts of Congress are the "supreme law" of the land. >>What we should all be concerned over and should abolish is the special prosecutor's role. The special prosecutor is not part of the system of justice but exists because Congress, the Executive and Judicial branches don't have the political will to exercise their assigned responsibilities provided in the Constitution. That's a nice sentiment that was not shared by Clinton or the Democrats so long as the law was directed against Rep Presidents. It is also an irrelevant diversion from Clinton's fate because the law was determined to be Constitutional and then reauthorized by Congress in 1993 with Clinton's signature. In fact, as the New York Times Editorial page has written many many times, the IC statute has been shown to be necessary most especially by the Clinton administration, which has shown itself to have had the most politically-compromised Justice Department since Nixon. Even Moynihan stated he couldn't believe how Janet Reno has stalled the inquiries concerning Clinton's illegal fundraising for over two years. In any event, the fate of the IC statute will be determined by Congress well after Clinton's denouement. >>The "system" of justice in this country never intended to have, nor does it in any way benefit from this abomination of democratic process. There you go again, showing your lack of knowledge concerning the law and history. That's no "abomination", that's the design! The system of justice was designed precisely to be insulated from the democratic process - that's what is meant by "the rule of law". That's why are a constitutional republic with a representative democracy. That's why judges are appointed for life, with impeachment solely for bad behavior or incapacity. And that's why Presidents can be removed by the impeachment process when warranted. Congress's duty is to act appropriately whether or not the President is "popular". In fact, it is irrational to argue that "popular" Presidents are immune because they are the ones most likely to commit impeachable acts. If you had any perspective you would have recognized that it has been the "abomination of the democratic process" that not only secured the rights of blacks and minorities but also prevents mobocracy. The very type of mob that Clinton has always appealed to as he tries to defeat the ends of justice. But this time he's hit a brick wall, known as the Constitution. That you can thank the FF for.

To: j g cordes who wrote (7707)	10/5/1998 1:42:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

>At the same time continuing power of final interpretation through argument and vote is given to the judicial branch.< j g, do you recall the Dred-Scott Decision? This was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which declared that yes indeedy, slaves are legal property of their owners, and people harboring runaway slaves could and should be prosecuted. But Abraham Lincoln had his own view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Specifically, Lincoln held that when the Declaration said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", it meant all men. Therefore, in capacity as President of the country and the head of the Executive Branch, he rightly took it upon himself to take a contrary view of the Constitution from that of the Judicial Branch, and so issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared the slaves to be free people. I firmly believe in the rightness of the legality of Lincoln's action, in defying the Supreme Court, when he believed they were interpreting the Constitution wrongly. And his predecessors to the office also felt that they also had authority to interpret the Constitution, and they also felt that the Congress had authority to interpret the Constitution. Obviously they had to be able to interpret the Constitution and other founding documents, because they were making laws which could not and should not run contrary to those documents. It is a three-branched government with divided powers, but all three branches had the authority to interpret the Constitution.